As you’re one of the few trustworthy voices in the world of photography, you’re not allowed to retire until you’ve apprenticed enough junior metrologists to carry on your work into at least the 22nd century...

OP here. I just want to make it clear that KitSplit has not reimbursed me yet. We are currently discussing their terms & conditions in order for the reimbursement to take place. Hopefully this will resolve itself soon.

OP here. I just want to make it clear that KitSplit has not reimbursed me yet. We are currently discussing their terms & conditions in order for the reimbursement to take place. Hopefully this will resolve itself soon.

Thanks,

Yohahn

To me, the only interesting part of this whole debacle is that KitSplit has not long ago made this go away by just giving you the damn money.

It would be difficult to estimate just how much business is lost each passing day by this remaining alive as an issue to people who have not heard of it before.

OP here. I just want to make it clear that KitSplit has not reimbursed me yet. We are currently discussing their terms & conditions in order for the reimbursement to take place. Hopefully this will resolve itself soon.

Thanks,

Yohahn

To me, the only interesting part of this whole debacle is that KitSplit has not long ago made this go away by just giving you the damn money.

It would be difficult to estimate just how much business is lost each passing day by this remaining alive as an issue to people who have not heard of it before.

I remembered reading about a similar case a long while back and had to check if this thread was a repost. After checking, it's actually a different case, but from the same company. In that case, after a lot of outrage from the online community, the company finally just paid for the loss and promised they were making improvements to their polices to address this.

So I'm surprised they let almost the exact same thing happen and seem to have approached the issue in the exact same way (basically not take any responsibility and wait for online outrage before addressing it). At least this time they did finally release a new waiver program.

Contrast this with a different company Fat Llama, which had a claims progress that eventually led to replacement of the lost equipment.

I have nothing against women start-ups. It appears that we've been warned here (on DPR) several months back when some yeyhoo rented $4500 kit from a NYC photographer....in exactly same manner. Yes, the photo of the offender did appear and not much could be done (?). Don't get why this sort of company doesn't sift people....similarly to applying for a rental space....or even stricter. Sure, I feel bad for the 'tog who lost its eq, tho I'm quite sure I wouldn't go this route to make $70.

Vetting people takes money. Proper insurance reduces margins.

Slick marketing to a community that is used to professional trust is cheap.

OP here. I just want to make it clear that KitSplit has not reimbursed me yet. We are currently discussing their terms & conditions in order for the reimbursement to take place. Hopefully this will resolve itself soon.

Thanks,

Yohahn

When there is a thread several pages long about it on possibly the biggest internet photography forum they are playing for time?

KitSplit sounds like trying to catch eels in the river with bare hands.

I have nothing against women start-ups. It appears that we've been warned here (on DPR) several months back when some yeyhoo rented $4500 kit from a NYC photographer....in exactly same manner. Yes, the photo of the offender did appear and not much could be done (?). Don't get why this sort of company doesn't sift people....similarly to applying for a rental space....or even stricter. Sure, I feel bad for the 'tog who lost its eq, tho I'm quite sure I wouldn't go this route to make $70.

Vetting people takes money. Proper insurance reduces margins.

Slick marketing to a community that is used to professional trust is cheap.

I sit here still incredulous that The Business Model of one photographer handing over his equipment to another was not insured for by the company.

I have nothing against women start-ups. It appears that we've been warned here (on DPR) several months back when some yeyhoo rented $4500 kit from a NYC photographer....in exactly same manner. Yes, the photo of the offender did appear and not much could be done (?). Don't get why this sort of company doesn't sift people....similarly to applying for a rental space....or even stricter. Sure, I feel bad for the 'tog who lost its eq, tho I'm quite sure I wouldn't go this route to make $70.

Vetting people takes money. Proper insurance reduces margins.

Slick marketing to a community that is used to professional trust is cheap.

I sit here still incredulous that The Business Model of one photographer handing over his equipment to another was not insured for by the company.

That's the whole point of the business model! Gear rental without shipping, vetting, or insurance allows you to capture the profit and shift off the risk.

I'm unaware of how the KitSplit company is viewed among its peers. In business, perception is everything. I look at the OP's original post, and I would make me feel like I got mugged in a Craigslist exchange while the repeat perpetrator watched on in the distance. The simple fact that the owner of the company literally created an account (her first post was the reply to OP and this thread) for the purpose of addressing this matter shows the significance of this misstep to the company. They may be taking a step in the right direction, and I certainly hope that KitSplit addresses the matter towards its audience in a proper fashion. The lack of foresight in how to address incidents that can lead towards a downward trend of the company bottom line is eye brow raising to say the least.

I found it interesting that LisbethK's profile indicates that she joined DPReview on June 14, 2016. Yet, as you say, her first ever post was in this thread 3 years later. So if the account was "created for the purpose of addressing this matter" (your words), she anticipated the issue three years ago.

I’m happy to share that KitSplit has made the effort to make things right by reimbursing me for my stolen gear on their platform.

But more importantly, KitSplit is making changes in order to prevent this from happening again, which no other rental platform is currently offering but I hope they do as well — protecting equipment owners who opt in for volunteer parting.

Their first step towards this promise is announcing the “KitSplit Theft Protection Owner Guarantee” policy.

Obviously, this policy may not be a perfect end-all solution right away, but at least they are trying, and that’s all I could ask for.

It became apparent after talking to KitSplit that this policy has been in the works for a while. But it’s also undeniable to say the least that it was the collective voice of the community that helped bring this decision into fruition, and so for that, both KitSplit and I thank you all for driving this change.

Please feel free to email KitSplit with any feedback you may have in regards to improving their platform since they would love to hear from you and be kept accountable, in order to truly be a marketplace for filmmakers by filmmakers.

You can read about KitSplit’s initiative to protect future owners with their new policy here:

P.S. sorry things took so long to wrap up. I asked KitSplit to grant me the title of “Breaker of Chains” but they kept insisting that it was taken already so we just settled with the original title of “The Yohahn” given by Lisbeth, Founder/CEO, KitSplit.

That's great! Good that those folks ended up doing the right thing. It seems incredibly naive (to put it generously) that they ever assumed that they didn't need some sort of guarantee for exactly this kind of issue, but at least they eventually figured it out.

I like hearing about good things happening to good people, but I also like hearing about really bad things happening to rotten people which is why I'm curious about the thief? I'd love to hear that this guy is busted for this and hopefully for other of the same. At the very least, I have to wonder if there's a better way to get info and screen these folks so that a guy like that isn't able to rent in the first place and then if he does and ends up stealing stuff that there's a good way to track and of course nab him...

" For owners who opt in, we are pledging to cover the costs if a renter disappears with the gear and refuses to return it. For the renter, there’s no additional cost."

1) Why would an owner not "opt-in" to be covered in case someone takes his camera? Is it because it costs extra?

2) I guess when they say for the renter there's no additional cost, it means that it costs more for the owner if he "opts in."

Still rather poor. This should be automatic, and built in.

I agree, if there's not enough of a profit incentive to rent out your gear after you've paid the fees and extra on top of that for their insurance/guarantee/whatever then it seems like the whole model this is built on is doomed to fail...

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.